From the United Farm Workers:

Deadly pesticide endosulfan banned in the European Union and 20 nations, but in the United States the EPA allows its continued use.

The UFW and a broad coalition of farm worker, public health, and environmental groups just filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop the continued use of the hazardous pesticide endosulfan. Science clearly shows that the use of this chemical puts the health of exposed farm workers and children in agricultural communities at risk. 
 
Endosulfan is part of the same family of chemicals as DDT, which the EPA banned in 1972. It is persistent in the environment and can be found in regions far from where it was applied. The EPA’s own analysis confirmed that the pesticide poses severe risks to humans and only minimal benefits to growers. Approximately 1.38 million pounds of endosulfan were used annually in the United States as of 2002--the most recent year for which national usage data are available from the EPA.

Earlier this year, more than 13,000 Americans concerned about these health and environmental risks signed a petition urging the EPA to discontinue endosulfan use. In addition more than 100 environmental and public health groups recently sent a letter to EPA’s Administrator Stephen Johnson and more than 50 international scientists, medical doctors, nurses, and other health professionals have urged the EPA to take action. To date the EPA has not responded.

There’s plenty of evidence and no need for more studies. Join us in demanding that the EPA take action.  Send your e-mail today.

 (Note: I added the Wikipedia link to the email.)

I'm reading the newspaper today over my usual healthy breakfast (and single cup of coffee for the day: yes, I have fallen off the wagon), and I come across the following in the lead paragraphs of an article about how the two presidential contenders view immigration issues:

At a recent John McCain town-hall meeting in Bucks County, a woman began her question to the Republican presidential candidate with a complaint: "Why, as an American, do I have to push a button to speak English?"

The crowd roared. "I think you struck a nerve," McCain said.

"I tell you, I really get ticked," the woman continued. "You go into Lowe's and it says, Entrada."

The only nerve that got struck on me right there was the one marked "annoyed."

Let me get this straight.  You've gotten the chance to ask a question of one of the two presidential candidates, the "presumptive nominee" of the Republican Party.  Gas prices are over $4 gallon, a couple million homes are in foreclosure, banks are closing, we're fighting two wars overseas and may be about to get entangled in a third, the Phillies have fallen out of first place, and this is what you're complaining about?

"Why as an American do you have to push a button to speak English?"  That's easy.  Because this is America.  Because, as a capitalist country - something the conservatives are always quick to remind us - the companies you've been dealing with have made what's called a "business decision."  See, what that means is that they have decided they will do something called "making more money" if they expand their customer base to include folks whose primary spoken language is not English.  Same with those signs.  They are throwing out the bilingual welcome mat because they want people to shop there.  It's called the "profit motive."

Even a raving socialist "radical" knows that stuff.

What does it cost you to wait an extra second or two to be asked to "press one for English"?  And usually English is the first, number one, all-American choice, right?  How much real confusion does it cause you to have to look at an entrance sign and see that right next to  "entrada," it says "ENTER," so you can figure out how to get in the dang door? 

And, let's face it, LOTS of private businesses, especially smaller ones, still don't  offer bilingual choices on their telephone menus or on their signage.   I still see lots of English-only signs posted in private businesses in my community and elsewhere, even across the river in the city in Philadelphia.  (Shoot, one Confederate flag tattoo-wearing gentleman over there just won the right -in court - to demand that his customers only speak English  when ordering up one of his greasy cheesesteaks and thus became a hero for xenophobes everywhere in the process).  If having to deal with Spanish on any level gives you such a case of hives, just don't shop there.  Vote with your all-American feet (in those Chinese-made running shoes) and take your in-God-we-trust dollars and just shop elsewhere.  I'm sure Wal-Mart and PetSmart and Target and Lowes and all those other places won't miss your money.

I really do not get this hostility, the close-mindedness that goes along with this.  Well, wait a sec... I take that back.  I do get it.  I just don't like thinking about it, because it makes me sad.  It's about fear, of course.  Fear of change, fear of difference, fear of the loss of privilege, fear of The Other.  It's the fear that's being whipped up by groups like The Misnomeredmen, by media demagogues like Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity, by xenophobes like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and Pat Buchannan, by too many bloggers to list.  Too many people are letting others do the thinking for them, and are simply buying into the hate.  And the fear.  Always the fear.  Life is so much easier when you let other folks do your mental heavy-lifting.

John McCain does get one thing right in this article, where it is noted that he is usually quick to say, when talking about immigration, that immigrants are "God's children" who are just looking for a better quality of life here in America.  People might do well to remember that, and maybe spend some time looking at their own families' experiences in getting to and settling in this country.

So, to the lady whose quotes opened that newspaper article, I would say this:

Embrace your inner immigrant.  Think for yourself.  Take a deep breath and try to remember there are other, more important things to worry about.

And, to paraphrase another, better writer on this subject, press three for "empathy."

(And to the lady in the picture, I recommend a dictionary.)

There are so many books that have been written on justice. Fortunately, I have discovered how to some up justice in one paragraph. Justice is nothing more than the voluntary transfer between consenting adults. Yup, it's that simple. Freedom and justice are the same thing. It is such an easy concept, yet many cannot understand it. I'll give a couple scenarios.

One person inherited 10 billion dollars from his father. The one who was given the money is the most disgusting, perverted, lazy, and greedy peopel on the face of the earth. He already has everything he needs and so he has no need for the money. He also does no deserve the money. So in his free time, he makes fire out of his money and makes jokes about all of the starving people in Africa. This is completely unfair, and at the same time, it is completely just.

Government should exist to simply protect our rights. These are rights of liberty and property. This is done through keeping justice. This makes economics impossible to separate from the notion of freedom. The government is not supposed to grant us any of these rights by distributing them evenly. This inherently violates the rights in which it is trying to protect. Instead, rights are in place to be restrictive. It means that the only thing the government should be doing is making sure that people do not take away other people's rights by stealing, murdering, vandalizing, and basically coercion in any form.

However, people have assumed that justice means that everything is fair. They get this from a theory of desert, which means that people should get what they deserve. But who exactly decides who deserves what? Perhaps I care more about sports than I do about my house. I feel that athletes deserve more than firefighters. Some people would probably disagree with me, but how can you say who is right? You can't. The desert theory is an epic failure. Our system shoudl work as a system of voluntary entitlements which leaves no room protects our rights of liberty and property and keeps justice alive.

Giving us the free will to do with the wealth we have been entitled to is what politics should be all about. It isn't about the majority deciding who gets what. That is oppression and a violation of our rights. If you remember anything from this, remember this: Rights are nothing more than a restrictive force on others from them doing anything to you that you do not consent to. They are not enabling, and they sure as hell are not about fairness. If someone was to ask me what my politcal beliefs are, I would say free market. Because economics is the same thing as politics. No one forcing anyone into doing anything is what it is all about. Only then can freedom and justice be achieved.

I watched this speech the other night on Youtube and I kind of laughed to myself at how easily we all get caught up in the way a person is portrayed, perceived, and analyzed, instead of just seeking out moments when the individual is probably being closest to who he/she really is behind all of the "controversies, crises, and crap".

I appreciated Senator Obama's speech for its historical references and for his understanding of what we all need to do and the fact that we, as human beings, have a lot more work to do.

The fact that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, Julian Bond, Diane Nash, and so many more were only in their 20s when they "refused to settle for the world as it is" and sought to fight for the "world as it should be". It is something that I know that I definitely forget all the time and almost fall and believe that I cannot do anything because "I have not accomplished anything in my life yet". I know that I sometimes discriminate against my own self due to my young age in the scope of the world. However, remembering all of these great people who have come before me who began fighting at young ages reminds me that it is not about how much you have done up until this point or how old you are, but what you are doing right now.

I also appreciated Obama's speaking on the undeniable tie between social justice and economic justice in order to achieve equality and create opportunity for so many people who need it. I appreciated his knowledge of many issues that affect all people in this nation, not just African Americans....but I appreciated even more his knowledge of these issues and the fact that they affect the African American community a bit more.

But more than anything, I appreciated his honesty in pushing for more governmental responsibility and more responsibility on Wall Street AND pushing for more of our own responsibility in our own communities. I am so grateful for his honesty and for saying it, in this public forum with his speech now on Youtube, that individual responsibility AND collective responsibility are equally important.

We have to demand more from ourselves....we have to. We will not get anywhere by blaming everyone else and not also looking in the mirrors. I honestly believe this...I truly do.

"None of it will make a difference, at least not enough of a difference, if we also at the same time don't seize more responsibility in our own lives. Dr. King understood this. Dr. King talked about this. It is not an either/or proposition but a both/and proposition. We need societal responsibility AND we need individual responsibility....That's how we will truly honor those who came before us. I know that Thurgood Marshall did not argue Brown vs. Board of Education so that some of us could stop doing our jobs as parents. That wasn't the deal. I know that nine little children didn't walk through a schoolhouse door in Little Rock, so we could stand by and let our children drop out of school and turn to gangs for the support they are not getting elsewhere in the community. That's not the freedom that we fought to achieve. That's not the America that our leadership sought to build. That's not the dream they had for our children. So, if we are serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives. There is nothing wrong with saying that."

Now, if Jesse Jackson still thinks that Senator Obama is "talking down to Blacks" and "needs to have his nuts cut off" for being HONEST with the African American community and encouraging us to lift up ourselves and lift up this country -- well then Jesse needs to go take a nap and hush up. Not being HONEST with ourselves is not going to help us at all and he is completely missing the point of what we should be fighting for.

By being more honest with ourselves, we will allow ourselves to be and thrive as more wholly human and not just two dimensional caricutures of Blackness, not just 3/5 of a human being, not just as stereotypes perpetuated and supported by the media and by the damn foolish lies we tell ourselves. If we love ourselves, if we want to love ourselves, then we have to be honest with ourselves.

The truth shall indeed set you free.

Amen.

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," [Gramm] said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.

To be sure, we should be neither surprised nor shocked at such callousness. The Grammster does have a public track record of rhetoric consistent with his ideology, noted for example by the late Molly Ivins upon Gramm's leaving public office in 2002:

Gramm both looks like a snapping turtle and has the personality of one. When he ran for president in 1996 and finished fifth in Iowa, all the profiles written of him included the line "Even his friends don't like him." Self-righteous and strident, Gramm demonized his opponents and used bitter, polarizing rhetoric. During a Senate debate over Social Security, a member pointed out that the proposal under consideration would hurt 80-year-old retirees. "Most people don't have the luxury of living to be 80 years old," Gramm scoffed, "so it's hard for me to feel sorry for them." Well, there is that.

On another occasion, Gramm ridiculed a newspaper photo of poor people who were forced to cut corners to put food on the table. "Did you see the picture?" Gramm asked a crowd. "Here are these people who are skimping to avoid hunger and they are all fat!... We're the only nation in the world where all our poor people are fat." During the fight over health care reform, Gramm said, "We have to blow up this train and the rails and the trestle and kill everyone on board." When an elderly widow in Corsicana told him that cutting Medicare would make it more difficult for her to remain independent, Gramm said, "You haven't thought about a new husband, have you?"

And surprise! Gramm's priorities as a legislator matched his rhetoric:

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee and the recipient of enormous banking contributions, Gramm did an even bigger favor for the financial industry in 1999 when he sponsored the Financial Services Modernization Act allowing banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to combine. The bill weakened the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to help meet the credit needs of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Gramm described community groups that use the CRA as "protection rackets" that extort funds from the poor, powerless banks. The bill is also a disaster for the privacy of bank customers and weakens regulatory supervision. As Gramm proudly declared, "You're not going to find a single bank, insurance company, or securities company that will say they were hurt financially by this bill."

To be fair, Gramm occasionally found it in his heart to assist the poor -- like the time he suggested that mothers on welfare would be better off working for $2.50 an hour. A more typical Gramm vote, though, came on an energy bill that benefited oil and gas companies at the expense of consumers. "There are winners and losers in every economic decision," Gramm said portentously. He was then getting more oil and gas money than any other member of the Senate...

No doubt this "economic expert" will soon opine about a "planet of whiners" such as these:

The soaring cost of food increased the number of hungry people in the world by 122 million in 2007 and now threatens to swell the malnourished population for a decade, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said.

According to the department's annual Food Security Assessment, 982 million people were hungry last year, up 14% from a revised estimate of 860 million in 2006. The number of new hungry people -- the biggest increase since the department started producing the report 16 years ago -- is roughly the population of Japan.

I'll bet the Grammster will point out that starving babies have big bellies. Big bellies! What's that all about?

And here's John McCain at the counter of the Bailey Building and Loan. He didn't get it then either.

Part I

When everything is urgent the clocks tick 24/7 around the world. When everything is urgent the accountabilities start now, not tomorrow.Competing challenges demand concrete action plans today - from G8 and all. That's where we are at in Hokkaido as those gathered start to disperse.

The mood, the tone, the attitudes have already shifted. More comment about 2009 and 2015 than 2008; something to be wary about. The way forward looms larger than yesterday - the work plan manifest again.

"I am glad I came here from Africa. I'm grateful to see this G8 in action. It's not what I thought or imagined, but it's now clear what we must do. As a woman in development in my country, in our region," said Carolyn.

"I learned a lot here. I know now more of what I need to know and do to engage policies. I will go next year with many more lessons learned back home with farmers."

One of the impressive, authentic voices here in Japan this week. She didn't come for a show - or to be the show; she came to bear witnesses the real needs and real opportunities; she's neither discouraged nor naive.

Japanese Prime Minister Fukuda briefs us all at this minute. "Indeed at times there have been tensions as we, G8, spoke with each other. These global challenges are very large; it's been a complex agenda from which we've made much progress...and found major cooperation from leaders."

"Much of what we discussed with major economies will be with us in Italy next year."

Global concerns rooted in national initiatives echo from the G8 spokespeople today: "We're at the midpoint of MDGs, we can't back up now."

Part II

Another Joseph, this one from Uganda, has been organizing civil society community groups for decades: "It's so important for us to be at the G8, but I agree with Caritas that local voices need to be even more visible at these summits."You're right, it's not enough to be invited. We need to work together, take the risk to get a seat at the table with a more respected voice on the agenda.

"Maybe - if there's really a serious desire to help, to meet, to support development and Africa, the G8 could come to Africa. Such a meeting in our countries, amidst our natural beauty, wouldn't be a show. It could be a challenge for all.

"And yes - we would need to be even more serious about things we want to fix ourselves. Maybe we misplaced our voice, lost our own energy sometimes to fix what we know needs fixing."

Maybe indeed, as the G8 has considered "the historical structures for G8" these last 34 years - maybe we can be necessary agents of change.

And that maybe must be now.

Cumbre del G8 en Hokkaido: Último Día

Por Joseph Donnelly - Centro Internacional de Prensa/Cumbre del G8 en Hokkaido

I Parte

Cuando todo es urgente, el tictac de los relojes no se detiene. Cuando todo es urgente la rendición de cuentas empieza ahora, no mañana.

Los desafíos en conflicto exigen planes concretos de acción hoy, de parte del G8 y de todos. Es en ese punto en el que nos encontramos aquí en Hokkaido, conforme aquellos que se reunieron se empiezan a dispersar.

El ánimo, el tono y las actitudes ya han cambiado. Más comentarios acerca de 2009 y de 2015 que de 2008; hay que ser precavidos. De acuerdo con el plan, nuevamente el camino hacia adelante se vislumbra más largo que ayer.

"Estoy contenta de haber venido desde África. Estoy agradecida de ver al G8 en acción. No es lo que yo pensaba o lo que me imaginaba; pero ahora tengo claro lo que tenemos que hacer. Como mujer trabajando en desarrollo en mi país, en nuestra región", dijo Carolyn.

"He aprendido mucho. Ahora sé mejor lo que tengo que saber y lo que tengo que hacer para involucrarme en las políticas. El próximo año iré con muchas más lecciones aprendidas con los agricultores en mi país".

Una de las voces impactantes y genuinas que estuvo presente esta semana Japón. Carolyn no vino a ver un show, o a ser uno, ella vino a ser testigo de las verdaderas necesidades y de las verdaderas oportunidades; no está desalentada ni es ingenua.

El Primer Ministro Japonés, Yasuo Fukuda, declaró: "En verdad a veces ha habido tensiones cuando nosotros, el G8, hablamos entre nosotros. Estos cambios globales son muy grandes; ha sido una agenda compleja en la que hemos avanzado mucho... y hemos encontrado mucha cooperación de los líderes".

"Mucho de lo que hemos discutido con las principales economías seguirá estando con nosotros el próximo año en Italia".

Las inquietudes mundiales arraigadas en las iniciativas nacionales resonaron hoy en las palabras de los voceros del G8: "Estamos a la mitad del camino para cumplir con los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, no nos podemos hacer para atrás".

II Parte

Otro participante, también llamado Joseph, proveniente de Uganda, ha estado organizando grupos comunitarios de la sociedad civil durante décadas: "Para nosotros es muy importante estar en la Cumbre del G8, pero estoy de acuerdo con Caritas en que las voces locales tienen que tener aún más presencia en estas cumbres".

"Tienen razón, ser invitado no es suficiente. Tenemos que trabajar juntos, tomar el riesgo de sentarnos a la mesa con una voz más respetada en la agenda".

"Quizá si realmente hay un deseo de ayudar, de reunirse, de apoyar el desarrollo y a África, el G8 podría ir a África. Dicha reunión en nuestros países, en medio de la belleza natural, no sería un show. Podría ser un reto para todos ellos".

"Y sí, nosotros mismos tendríamos que ser más serios en lo que respecta a lo que queremos remediar. Quizá a veces hemos perdido nuestra voz o desperdiciado nuestra energía tratando de remediar lo que sabemos que necesita remedio".

Tal vez sea cierto que durante los últimos 34 años el G8 ha considerado "las estructuras históricas para el G8", quizá nosotros podemos ser los agentes necesarios para el cambio.

Y quizá eso tenga que ser ahora.

G8-Hokkaido : Dernier jour

Par Joseph C Donnelly - Centre international des médias / Sommet du G8 à Hokkaido

Partie I

Quand tout est urgent les pendules sonnent 24h/24, 7j/7 dans le monde entier. Quand tout est urgent, les responsabilités commencent maintenant, pas demain.

Des challenges opposés exigent des plans d’action concrets aujourd’hui - du G8 et de tous. Voilà où nous en sommes à Hokkaido quand ceux qui sont venus commencent à se disperser.

L’humeur, le ton, les attitudes ont déjà changés. Plus de personnes font des commentaires sur 2009 et 2015 que 2008 ; de quoi s’inquiéter. L’avenir semble plus proche qu’hier – Le plan d’action est à nouveau manifeste.

"Je suis heureuse d’être venue pour l’Afrique. Je suis reconnaissante de voir ce G8 en action. Ce n’est pas ce que j’avais pensé ou imaginé, mais ce que nous devons faire est désormais clair. En tant que femme qui aide mon pays, notre région à se développer," a déclaré Carolyn.

"J’ai beaucoup appris ici. Je sais désormais ce que je dois savoir et ce que je dois faire pour faire avancer les choses. Je reviendrai l’année prochaine en ayant appris d’autres leçons dans mon pays avec les agriculteurs."

Ce n’est qu’une des voix impressionnantes et authentiques qu’on a entendues au Japon cette semaine. Elle n’est pas venue pour un spectacle – ou pour être le spectacle – elle est venue pour témoigner des véritables besoins et des véritables perspectives d’avenir. Elle n’est ni découragée, ni naïve.

Le premier ministre japonais, Fukuda, nous met tous au courant : "Il y a en effet eu des tensions quand nous, le G8, avons entamé les discussions. Ces challenges mondiaux sont très grands. Ce fut un ordre du jour complexe sur lequel nous avons bien progressé... et avons trouvé une bonne coopération des leaders."

"La plus grande partie de ce que nous avons débattu avec les grandes économies sera à nouveau examiné en Italie l’année prochaine."

Les inquiétudes mondiales venant des initiatives nationales renvoient l’écho du porte-parole du G8 aujourd’hui : “Nous sommes à mi-chemin des ODM, nous ne pouvons pas faire marche arrière maintenant."

Partie II

Un autre Joseph, celui-là d’Ouganda, regroupe les communautés et la société civile depuis des années : "Il est très important pour nous que nous soyons au sommet du G8, mais je suis d’accord avec Caritas pour dire que les voix locales doivent y être encore plus visibles.

“Vous avez raison, ça ne suffit pas d’être invités. Nous avons besoin de travailler ensemble, de prendre le risque de nous asseoir à la table des négociations afin d’avoir une voix plus respectée à l’ordre du jour.

“Peut-être que s’ils ont vraiment envie d’aider, de rencontrer, de soutenir le développement et l’Afrique, les leaders du G8 pourraient venir en Afrique. Une telle réunion dans nos pays, au milieu de notre belle nature, ne serait pas un spectacle. Ce pourrait être un challenge pour nous tous.

“Et oui, nous devrions être encore plus sérieux sur les choses que nous voulons faire nous-mêmes. Nous nous sommes peut-être égarés, avons peut-être parfois perdu notre énergie pour réparer ce qui a besoin d’être réparé."

Peut-être en effet, alors que le G8 examine "les structures historiques du G8" depuis 34 ans – peut-être que nous pouvons être les agents nécessaires du changement.

Et ce peut-être doit être maintenant.

Is there any doubt that the Church is on the side of conservatism?

--

"To cure this evil, the Socialists, exciting the envy of the poor toward the rich, contend that it is necessary to do away with private possession of goods and in its place to make the goods of individuals common to all, and that the men who preside over a municipality or who direct the entire State should act as administrators of these goods. They hold that, by such a transfer of private goods from private individuals to the community, they can cure the present evil through dividing wealth and benefits equally among the citizens. But their program is so unsuited for terminating the conflict that it actually injures the workers themselves. Moreover, it is highly unjust, because it violates the rights of lawful owners, perverts the function of the State, and throws governments into utter confusion."

"Therefore, inasmuch as the Socialists seek to transfer the goods of private persons to the community at large, they make the lot of all wage earners worse, because in abolishing the freedom to dispose of wages they take away from them by this very act the hope and the opportunity of increasing their property and of securing advantages for themselves. But, what is of more vital concern, they propose a remedy openly in conflict with justice, inasmuch as nature confers on man the right to possess things privately as his own."

"And owing to the fact that this animal [the human being] alone has reason, it is necessary that man have goods not only to be used, which is common to all living things, but also to be possessed by stable and perpetual right; and this applies not merely to those goods which are consumed by use, but to those also which endure after being used."

"There is no reason to interpose provision by the State, for man is older than the State. Wherefore he had to possess by nature his own right to protect his life and body before any polity had been formed. The fact that God gave the whole human race the earth to use and enjoy cannot indeed in any manner serve as an objection against private possessions. For God is said to have given the earth to mankind in common, not because He intended indiscriminate ownership of it by all, but because He assigned no part to anyone in ownership, leaving the limits of private possessions to be fixed by the industry of men and the institutions of peoples."

"For this reason it also follows that private possessions are clearly in accord with nature. The earth indeed produces in great abundance the things to preserve and, especially, to perfect life, but of itself it could not produce them without human cultivation and care. Moreover, since man expends his mental energy and his bodily strength in procuring the goods of nature, by this very act he appropriates that part of physical nature to himself which he has cultivated. On it he leaves impressed, as it were, a kind of image of his person, so that it must be altogether just that he should possess that part as his very own and that no one in any way should be permitted to violate his right." Hmmm, sounds like John Locke's view of property and property rights....

"And, after all, would justice permit anyone to own and enjoy that upon which another has toiled? As effects follow the cause producing them, so it is just that the fruit of labor belongs precisely to those who have performed the labor. Rightly therefore, the human race as a whole, moved in no wise by the dissenting opinions of a few, and observing nature carefully, has found in the law of nature itself the basis of the distribution of goods, and, by the practice of all ages, has consecrated private possession as something best adapted to man's nature and to peaceful and tranquil living together. Now civil laws, which, when just, derive their power from the natural law itself, confirm and, even by the use of force, protect this right of which we speak. -- And this same right has been sanctioned by the authority of the divine law, which forbids us most strictly even to desire what belongs to another. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his house, nor his field, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his...."

"Behold, therefore, the family, or rather the society of the household, a very small society indeed, but a true one, and older than any polity! For that reason it must have certain rights and duties of its own independent of the State. Thus, right of ownership, which we have shown to be bestowed on individual persons by nature, must be assigned to man in his capacity as head of a family. Nay rather, this right is all the stronger, since the human person in family life embraces much more...."

"Inasmuch as the Socialists, therefore, disregard care by parents and in its place introduce care by the State, they act against natural justice and dissolve the structure of the home. And apart from the injustice involved, it is only too evident what turmoil and disorder would obtain among all classes; and what a harsh and odious enslavement of citizens would result! The door would be open to mutual envy, detraction, and dissension. If incentives to ingenuity and skill in individual persons were to be abolished, the very fountains of wealth would necessarily dry up; and the equality conjured up by the Socialist imagination would, in reality, be nothing but uniform wretchedness and meanness for one and all, without distinction."

"From all these conversations, it is perceived that the fundamental principle of Socialism which would make all possessions public property is to be utterly rejected because it injures the very ones whom it seeks to help, contravenes the natural rights of individual persons, and throws the functions of the State and public peace into confusion. Let it be regarded, therefore, as established that in seeking help for the masses this principle before all is to be considered as basic, namely, that private ownership must be preserved inviolate...."

"Therefore, let it be laid down in the first place that a condition of human existence must be borne with, namely, that in civil society the lowest cannot be made equal to the highest. Socialists, of course, agitate the contrary, but all struggling against nature is vain. There are truly very great and very many natural differences among men. Neither the talents, nor the skill, nor the health, nor the capacities of all are the same, and unequal fortune follows of itself upon necessary inequality in respect to these endowments. And clearly this condition of things is adapted to benefit both individuals and the community; for to carry on its affairs community life requires varied aptitudes and diverse services, and to perform these diverse services men are impelled most by differences in individual property holdings. Therefore, to suffer and endure is human, and although men may strive in all possible ways, they will never be able by any power or art wholly to banish such tribulations from human life. If any claim they can do this, if they promise the poor in their misery a life free from all sorrow and vexation and filled with repose and perpetual pleasures, they actually impose upon these people and perpetuate a fraud which will ultimately lead to evils greater than the present...."

"Among these duties the following concern the poor and the workers: To perform entirely and conscientiously whatever work has been voluntarily and equitably agreed upon; not in any way to injure the property or to harm the person of employers; in protecting their own interests, to refrain from violence and never to engage in rioting; not to associate with vicious men who craftily hold out exaggerated hopes and make huge promises, a course usually ending in vain regrets and in the destruction of wealth...."

"Therefore, the well-to-do are admonished that wealth does not give surcease of sorrow, and that wealth is of no avail unto the happiness of eternal life but is rather a hindrance; that the threats pronounced by Jesus Christ, so unusual coming from Him, ought to cause the rich to fear; and that on one day the strictest account for the use of wealth must be rendered to God as Judge...." The rich must account to God, not the State for how they use their wealth. Of course, it is easily seen how liberal fascists have trouble distinguishing between the two.

"But when the demands of necessity and propriety have been met, it is a duty to give to the poor out of that which remains.... These are duties not of justice, except in cases of extreme need, but of Christian charity, which obviously cannot be enforced by legal action...."

"But it must not be supposed that the Church so concentrates her energies on caring for souls as to overlook things which pertain to mortal and earthly life. As regards the non-owning workers specifically, she desires and strives that they rise from their most wretched state and enjoy better conditions. And to achieve this result she makes no small contribution by the very fact that she calls men to and trains them in virtue. For when Christian morals are completely observed, they yield of themselves a certain measure of prosperity to material existence, because they win the favor of God, the source and fountain of all goods; because they restrain the twin plagues of life -- excessive desire for wealth and thirst for pleasure -- which too often make man wretched amidst the very abundance of riches; and because finally, Christian morals make men content with a moderate livelihood and make them supplement income by thrift, removing them far from the vices which swallow up both modest sums and huge fortunes, and dissipate splendid inheritances."

"But, in addition, the Church provides directly for the well-being of the non-owning workers by instituting and promoting activities which she knows to be suitable to relieve their distress. Nay, even in the field of works of mercy, she has always so excelled that she is highly praised by her very enemies. The force of mutual charity among the first Christians was such that the wealthier ones very often divested themselves of their riches to aid others; wherefore, 'Nor was there anyone among them in want.' [Acts 4:34] To the deacons, an order founded expressly for this purpose, the Apostles assigned the duty of dispensing alms daily; and the Apostle Paul, although burdened with the care of all the churches, did not hesitate to spend himself on toilsome journeys in order to bring alms personally to the poorer Christians. Moneys of this kind, contributed voluntarily by the Christians in every assembly, Tertullian calls 'piety's deposit fund,' because they were expended to 'support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of orphan boys and girls without means of support, of aged household servants, and of such, too, as had suffered shipwreck.'"

"Thence, gradually there came into existence that patrimony which the Church has guarded with religious care as the property of the poor. Nay, even disregarding the feeling of shame associated with begging, she provided aid for the wretched poor. For, as the common parent of rich and poor, with charity everywhere stimulated to the highest degree, she founded religious societies and numerous other useful bodies, so that, with the aid which these furnished, there was scarcely any form of human misery that went uncared for."

"And yet many today go so far as to condemn the Church as the ancient pagans once did, for such outstanding charity, and would substitute in lieu thereof a system of benevolence established by the laws of the State. But no human devices can ever be found to supplant Christian charity, which gives itself entirely for the benefit of others. This virtue belongs to the Church alone, for, unless it is derived from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, it is in no wise a virtue; and whosoever departs from the Church wanders far from Christ...."

"Therefore those governing the State ought primarily to devote themselves to the service of individual groups and of the whole commonwealth, and through the entire scheme of laws and institutions to cause both public and individual well-being to develop spontaneously out of the very structure and administration of the State. For this is the duty of wise statesmanship and the essential office of those in charge of the State. Now, States are made prosperous especially by wholesome morality, properly ordered family life, protection of religion and justice, moderate imposition and equitable distribution of public burdens, progressive development of industry and trade, thriving agriculture, and by all other things of this nature, which the more actively they are promoted, the better and happier the life of the citizens is destined to be. Therefore, by virtue of these things, it is within the competence of the rulers of the State that, as they benefit other groups, they also improve in particular the condition of the workers. Furthermore, they do this with full right and without laying themselves open to any charge of unwarranted interference. For the State is bound by the very law of its office to serve the common interest. And the richer the benefits which come from this general providence on the part of the State, the less necessary it will be to experiment with other measures for the well-being of workers...."

"Rights indeed, by whomsoever possessed, must be religiously protected; and public authority, in warding off injuries and punishing wrongs, ought to see to it that individuals may have and hold what belongs to them.... The capital point is this, that private property ought to be safeguarded by the sovereign power of the State and through the bulwark of its laws. And especially, in view of such a great flaming up of passion at the present time, the masses ought to be kept within the bounds of their moral obligations. For while justice does not oppose our striving for better things, on the other hand, it does forbid anyone to take from another what is his and, in the name of a certain absurd equality, to seize forcibly the property of others; nor does the interest of the common good itself permit this. Certainly, the great majority of working people prefer to secure better conditions by honest toil, without doing wrong to anyone. Nevertheless, not a few individuals are found who, imbued with evil ideas and eager for revolution, use every means to stir up disorder and incite to violence. The authority of the State, therefore, should intervene and, by putting restraint upon such disturbers, protect the morals of workers from their corrupting arts and lawful owners from the danger of spoliation...."

"[I]n the case of the worker, there are many things which the power of the State should protect; and, first of all, the goods of his soul. For however good and desirable mortal life be, yet it is not the ultimate goal for which we are born, but a road only and a means for perfecting, through knowledge of truth and love of good, the life of the soul...." Hmmm, I assume preventing the poor from stealing from the rich would be good for the souls of the poor, no?

"Let it be granted then that worker and employer may enter freely into agreements and, in particular, concerning the amount of the wage; yet there is always underlying such agreements an element of natural justice, and one greater and more ancient than the free consent of contracting parties, namely, that the wage shall not be less than enough to support a worker who is thrifty and upright...."

"But in these and similar questions, such as the number of hours of work in each kind of occupation and the health safeguards to be provided, particularly in factories, it will be better, in order to avoid unwarranted governmental intervention, especially since circumstances of business, season, and place are so varied, that decision be reserved to the organizations of which We are about to speak below...."

"We have seen, in fact, that the whole question under consideration cannot be settled effectually unless it is assumed and established as a principle, that the right of private property must be regarded as sacred. Wherefore, the law ought to favor this right and, so far as it can, see that the largest possible number among the masses of the population prefer to own property. If this is done, excellent benefits will follow, foremost among which will surely be a more equitable division of goods...."

"[I]f the productive activity of the multitude can be stimulated by the hope of acquiring some property in land, it will gradually come to pass that, with the difference between extreme wealth and extreme penury removed, one class will become neighbor to the other. Moreover, there will surely be a greater abundance of the things which the earth produces. For when men know they are working on what belongs to them, they work with far greater eagerness and diligence."

"But these advantages can be attained only if private wealth is not drained away by crushing taxes of every kind. For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man's law, but by nature, public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the commonweal. Public authority therefore would act unjustly and inhumanly, if in the name of taxes it should appropriate from the property of private individuals more than is equitable."

"Finally, employers and workers themselves can accomplish much in this matter, manifestly through those institutions by the help of which the poor are opportunely assisted and the two classes of society are brought closer to each other. Under this category come associations for giving mutual aid; various agencies established by the foresight of private persons to care for the worker and likewise for his dependent wife and children in the event that an accident, sickness, or death befalls him; and foundations to care for boys and girls, for adolescents, and for the aged...."

"Inadequacy of his own strength, learned from experience, impels and urges a man to enlist the help of others. Such is the teaching of Holy Scripture: "It is better therefore that two should be together than one; for they have the advantage of their society. If one fall he shall be supported by the other; woe to him that is alone, for when he falleth he hath none to lift him up." [Eccl. 4:9-10] And this also: "A brother that is helped by his brother, is like a strong city." [Proverbs 18:19] Just as man is drawn by this natural propensity into civil union and association, so he also seeks with his fellow citizens to form other societies, admittedly small and not perfect, but societies none the less...." Brothers know each other personally. Societies are local, small, and intimate. How the heck can a Christian claim impersonal Big Government thousands of miles away in Washington, DC is brotherly love?!

"Although private societies exist within the State and are, as it were, so many parts of it, still it is not within the authority of the State universally and per se to forbid them to exist as such. For man is permitted by a right of nature to form private societies; the State, on the other hand, has been instituted to protect and not to destroy natural right, and if it should forbid its citizens to enter into associations, it would clearly do something contradictory to itself because both the State itself and private associations are begotten of one and the same principle, namely, that men are by nature inclined to associate...." Hmmm, and what if government social programs destroy the will, initiative, and resources of private charitable groups by trying to assume to itself their functions and resources? Where will charitable groups get money if the State taxes the rich heavily?

"Certainly, the number of associations of almost every possible kind, especially of associations of workers, is now far greater than ever before. This is not the place to inquire whence many of them originate, what object they have, or how they proceed. But the opinion is, and it is one confirmed by a good deal of evidence, that they are largely under the control of secret leaders and that these leaders apply principles which are in harmony neither with Christianity nor with the welfare of States, and that, after having possession of all available work, they contrive that those who refuse to join with them will be forced by want to pay the penalty. Under these circumstances, workers who are Christians must choose one of two things; either to join associations in which it is greatly to be feared that there is danger to religion, or to form their own associations and unite their forces in such a way that they may be able manfully to free themselves from such unjust and intolerable opposition...."

"Finally, there are not wanting Catholics of great wealth, yet voluntary sharers, as it were, in the lot of the wage workers, who by their own generous contributions are striving to found and extend associations through which the worker is readily enabled to obtain from his toil not only immediate benefits, but also assurance of honorable retirement in the future. How much good such manifold and enthusiastic activity has contributed to the benefit of all this is too well known to make discussion necessary. From all this, We have taken auguries of good hope for the future, provided that societies of this kind continually grow and that they are founded with wise organization. Let the State protect these lawfully associated bodies of citizens; let it not, however, interfere with their private concerns and order of life; for vital activity is set in motion by an inner principle, and it is very easily destroyed, as We know, by intrusion from without." Hmmm, sounds like the principle of limited government. Now, what political philosophy espouses this principle too??

"It is clear, however, that moral and religious perfection ought to be regarded as their [unions'] principal goal, and that their social organization as such ought above all to be directed completely by this goal. For otherwise, they would degenerate in nature and would be little better than those associations in which no account is ordinarily taken of religion. Besides, what would it profit a worker to secure through an association an abundance of goods, if his soul through lack of its proper food should run the risk of perishing? "What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his own soul?" [Mt 16:26] Christ Our Lord teaches that this in fact must be considered the mark whereby a Christian is distinguished from a pagan: "After all these things the Gentiles seek -- seek ye first the kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be given you besides." [Mt 6:32-33] Therefore, having taken their principles from God, let those associations provide ample opportunity for religious instruction so that individual members may understand their duties to God, that they may well know what to believe, what to hope for, and what to do for eternal salvation, and that with special care they may be fortified against erroneous opinions and various forms of corruption." Hmmm, could these errors and corruption be liberalism and its disregard for private property rights? Judging from the rest of the encyclical, yes!

"Through these regulations, provided they are readily accepted, the interests and welfare of the poor will be adequately cared for. Associations of Catholics, moreover, will undoubtedly be of great importance in promoting prosperity in the State." He means moral, religious regulations, not government regulations. The context is clear. Also, promoting prosperity is good! How else can we provide for the poor??

"The foundation of this teaching rests on this, that the just ownership of money is distinct from the just use of money. To own goods privately, as We saw above, is a right natural to man, and to exercise this right, especially in life in society, is not only lawful, but clearly necessary. 'It is lawful for man to own his own things. It is even necessary for human life.' [Aquinas] But if the question be asked: How ought man to use his possessions? the Church replies without hesitation: 'As to this point, man ought not regard external goods as his own, but as common so that, in fact, a person should readily share them when he sees others in need. Wherefore the Apostle says: "Charge the rich of this world...to give readily, to share with others".'" [Aquinas; Tim 6:17-18] Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like Scripture says tax the rich and force them to share with others! It says that religious leaders, who are not to be political leaders, should encourage and command the rich to do so.

"For, no matter how strong the power of prejudice and passion in man, yet, unless perversity of will has deadened the sense of the right and just, the good will of citizens is certain to be more freely inclined toward those whom they learn to know as industrious and temperate, and who clearly place justice before profit and conscientious observance of duty before all else...." Notice that the pope has faith in free people who know others intimately in community. Why can't liberals do the same thing?

"They are conscious of being most inhumanly treated by greedy employers, that almost no greater value is placed on them than the amount of gain they yield by their toil, and that in the associations, moreover, in whose meshes they are caught, there exist in place of charity and love, internal dissensions which are the inseparable companions of aggravating and irreligious poverty. Broken in spirit, and worn out in body, how gladly many would free themselves from a servitude so degrading! Yet they dare not because either human shame or the fear of want prevents them. It is remarkable how much associations of Catholics can contribute to the welfare of all such men if they invite those wavering in uncertainty to their bosom in order to remedy their difficulties, and if they receive the penitents into their trust and protection...." Hmmm, again, I don't see any advocacy of Big Government. I see encouragement of private associations of Catholics (like at St. Mary's).

"First and foremost Christian morals must be re-established, without which even the weapons of prudence, which are considered especially effective, will be of no avail, to secure well-being." What?! We can't steal from the rich first and then be moral? What a shame.

"Let this be understood in particular by those whose duty it is to promote the public welfare. Let the members of the Sacred Ministry exert all their strength of mind and all their diligence, and Venerable Brethren, under the guidance of your authority and example, let them not cease to impress upon men of all ranks the principles of Christian living as found in the Gospel; by all means in their power let them strive for the well-being of people; and especially let them aim both to preserve in themselves and to arouse in others, in the highest equally as well as in the lowest, the mistress and queen of the virtues, Charity. Certainly, the well-being which is so longed for is chiefly to be expected from an abundant outpouring of charity; of Christian charity, we mean, which is in epitome the law of the Gospel, and which, always ready to sacrifice itself for the benefit of others, is man's surest antidote against the insolence of the world and immoderate love of self; the divine office and features of this virtue being described by the Apostle Paul in these words: "Charity is patient, is kind...is not self- seeking...bears with all things...endures all things." [1 Cor 13:4-7] Notice that it is the Church's duty to promote the public welfare. Notice that the well-being of the poor is to come "chiefly" from charity. Notice that real charity requires "sacrifice [of the self] for the benefit of others," NOT making others sacrifice for others.

By Joseph Donnelly-International Media Centre/Hokkaido G8 Summit

Entry Three: Waiting for a deal on climate change

It's absolutely wrong to think nothing happens when world leaders gather. It's absolutely correct however to challenge the outcomes.

That's what unfolded today in this remote resort community on a Japanese mountaintop. It was a day of who said what about climate change and about bio-fuels, and about how they were impacting on poor people.

These words on climate change come together after months of work consulting the right people, with other key governments, and even with civil society and NGO actors.

But nagging tensions buzzed, then brewed through these corridors the last 24 hours. With tens of millions of fragile lives in the balance all over the world, the G8 message on climate change was eagerly awaited.

Indeed, voices from the grassroots reverberated here: "If a simple person like me in an urban town can do something simple for a child far away, imagine what our world leaders could do... at those meetings to help people everywhere."

There is a large sense in these rooms this week that we're here with our constituents. We're here with our partners, echoing their voices and messages. We represent many people, who give us an important legitimacy.

We waited...

Entry Four: We have a climate change deal

Government spokespersons released the news: "We're committed to avoiding the most serious consequences of climate change -and determined to achieve the stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of global greenhouse gases..."

That's what the powerful ones said as their statement totalling 18 large paragraphs covering 7 pages reads on. It must be read in full!

We all need to read where this "progress" is heading. No one is ever pleased with every word or turn of phrase. We need to insure it's more than predictable rhetoric.

The general consensus suggests very cautious optimism amidst understandable disappointments as the last minutes of this day fade off. In the end - it seems countless media sources reached out to NGOs to get solid bottom lines, the enduring heart of environmental challenges while governments
traded badges of honour amongst themselves.

As day is done its fair for Caritas to affirm there's been some movement.

We have cautious optimism. We're eager to encourage serious informed leadership.

However, it needs to have an energized pace. We definitely share the fear. Standing still in this process is as bad as slipping backwards - which becomes inevitable. Yes, huge new funds must come forward, sooner not later. Urgent, but focused. Every dollar delayed risks the lives of the most vulnerable people.

Cumbre del G8 en Hokkaido, Tercer Día

Tercera anotación: A la espera de un acuerdo sobre el cambio climático

Es totalmente erróneo pensar que no sucede nada cuando se reúnen los líderes mundiales. Sin embargo, es totalmente apropiado cuestionar los resultados.

Eso fue lo que sucedió hoy en este remoto centro turístico en la cima de las montañas japonesas. Fue un día de quién dijo qué sobre el cambio climático y los biocombustibles, y sobre el impacto que los mismos tienen en los pobres.

Estos mensajes sobre el cambio climático surgen después de meses de consulta con las personas adecuadas, con otros gobiernos claves e incluso con actores de la sociedad civil y de las ONG.

Sin embargo, molestas tensiones hirvieron por estos corredores durante las últimas 24 horas. Mientras decenas de millones de vidas frágiles penden de un hilo en todo el mundo, el mensaje del G8 sobre el cambio climático se esperaba con ansiedad e impaciencia.

Las voces de las bases reverberaban: "Si una persona común y corriente como yo, en un centro urbano, puede hacer algo simple por un niño que se encuentra a gran distancia, imagínense lo que podrían hacer los líderes mundiales... en esas reuniones para ayudar a todo el mundo".
En estas salas hay una sensación de unidad. Estamos aquí con nuestras contrapartes, haciendo eco de sus mensajes y de sus voces. Representamos a muchas personas que nos dan una legitimidad importante.

Esperamos...

Cuarta anotación: Tenemos un acuerdo sobre el cambio climático

Los voceros de los gobiernos dieron a conocer la noticia: "Estamos comprometidos a evitar las consecuencias más severas del cambio climático y estamos determinados a lograr la estabilización de las concentraciones atmosféricas de los gases de invernadero mundiales..."

Esto fue lo que dijeron los poderosos en su comunicado que en total ocupa 18 párrafos en 7 páginas. ¡Hay que leer el documento completo!

Debemos leer hacia dónde va este "avance". Nunca nadie está satisfecho con cada palabra o con cada expresión. Debemos asegurar que esto es más que la esperada retórica.

Al finalizar el día, entre las muchas y comprensibles decepciones, el consenso general es que hay que ser optimista pero cauteloso.

Asimismo, Caritas puede afirmar que ha habido movimiento.

Nos encontramos con optimismo pero cautelosos. Estamos ansiosos por fomentar el liderazgo serio e informado.

No obstante, dicho liderazgo debe tener un ritmo entusiasta. Definitivamente compartimos el temor. Quedarse quietos en este proceso es lo mismo que dar un paso atrás - lo cual resulta inevitable. Sí, se deben crear nuevos fondos, lo antes posible. Urgente, pero enfocado. Cada dólar retrasado pone en peligro las vidas de los más vulnerables.

G8-Hokkaido Deuxième jour

Note trois : Attente d’un programme sur le changement climatique

C’est une erreur de penser que rien ne se passe quand les leaders mondiaux se réunissent. Il est toutefois tout à fait correct d’en contester les issues.

C’est ce qui a été révélé aujourd’hui dans ce lieu isolé au sommet d’une montagne japonaise. Ce fut une journée sur qui a dit quoi sur le changement climatique, les biocarburants, et leurs effets sur les pauvres.

Ces discussions sur le changement climatique ont lieu après des mois de consultations avec les bonnes personnes, d’autres gouvernements clés, et des acteurs de la société civile et des ONG.

Mais on a senti des tensions persistantes qui se sont propagées dans les couloirs ces dernières 24 heures. Avec des dizaines de millions de vies fragiles en jeu dans le monde entier, le message du G8 sur le changement climatique était attendu avec impatience.

En effet, des voix ont retenti : "Si une personne ordinaire comme moi peut faire quelque chose de simple pour un enfant qui habite loin, imaginez ce que les leaders mondiaux peuvent faire... lors de ces réunions pour aider les gens du monde entier."

Il y a un fort sentiment cette semaine que nous sommes ici avec nos électeurs. Nous sommes ici avec nos partenaires, renvoyant leurs voix et leurs messages. Nous représentons beaucoup de personnes, ce qui nous donne une légitimité importante.

Nous avons attendu...

Note quatre : Nous avons un programme pour le changement climatique

Le porte-parole des gouvernements a annoncé la nouvelle : " Nous prenons l’engagement d’éviter les conséquences les plus graves du changement climatique et nous sommes déterminés à parvenir à une stabilisation des concentrations atmosphériques des gaz à effet de serre à l’échelle de la planète..."

C’est ce que les dirigeants ont dit dans leur déclaration de 18 grands paragraphes sur un total de 7 pages. Il faut la lire en entier !

Nous devons tous savoir vers où ce "progrès" se dirige. On n’est jamais content de chaque mot ou de chaque tournure de phrase. Nous devons nous assurer que c’est plus qu’un discours prévisible.

Le consensus général laisse entendre un optimisme très prudent au milieu de déceptions légitimes en cette fin de journée. En fin de compte, on dirait que de nombreuses sources médiatiques se sont tournées vers les ONG pour avoir une conclusion solide sur les challenges environnementaux pendant que les gouvernements se félicitent les uns les autres.

Le jour tirant à sa fin, Caritas peut affirmer qu’il y a eu du mouvement.

Notre optimisme est prudent. Nous voulons encourager les dirigeants à être sincères et informés.

Toutefois, le rythme doit être énergique. Nous partageons la peur. Ne pas avancer dans ce processus, c’est comme revenir en arrière – ce qui devient inévitable. Oui, de nouveaux fonds importants sont nécessaires, vite et non plus tard. Urgents, mais ciblés. Chaque dollar qui est retardé met en danger la vie des plus vulnérables.

Efraim E. Diveroli, the president of AEY Incorporated, who is now 22 — was expected to enter a plea today in federal court in Miami, The Associated Press reports. He faces charges of fraud and making false statements to the United States Army in the course of procuring munitions for the government. 

It may be unusual that a 20 something gets a $300 million contract to arm Afghans, but it's not unprecedented. Neither is the issue that brings Diveroli and associates before the bar:

When the arms arrived in Afghanistan, it became clear that this wasn’t the latest factory-fresh stuff — it was made in China way back in 1966... Prosecutors said that Mr. Diveroli and the other defendants concealed the true source and age of the ammunition by submitting false documents to authorities and removing Chinese markings from the original shipping containers. The American ambassador to Albania, the country where AEY bought the munitions (from the Albanian government, which got them from China during the cold war), has also been ensnared in the allegations.

I came across the precedent many years ago, reading Howard Zinn:

J. P. Morgan had started before the war, as the son of a banker who began selling stocks for the railroads for good commissions. During the Civil War he bought five thousand rifles for $3.50 each from an army arsenal, and sold them to a general in the field for $22 each. The rifles were defective and would shoot off the thumbs of the soldiers using them. A congressional committee noted this in the small print of an obscure report, but a federal judge upheld the deal as the fulfillment of a valid legal contract.

I wonder if there's a legal precedent here, too. Anyhow, stay tuned to the life of Efraim. Most people may view him as a sleazy hustler, but I'm sure there are those of a more -- romantic -- frame of mind who may lionize him yet. Like this guy:

But men such as... J. P. Morgan, et al.-- are individuals who possess a rare virtue: the ability to create wealth on an enormous scale... Business giants like these dramatically solved the problem of production--the problem that plagued mankind throughout its history, and that still plagues the impoverished, non-capitalist nations of the world.

Gotta love those Ayn Rand freaks.  For them, to paraphrase Vince Lombardi, rationality isn't everything -- it's the only thing! And rationality only means anything if it works to enhance homo faber.

But, you can't be homo faber without thumbs, ya know?

By Joseph Donnelly-International Media Centre/Hokkaido G8 Summit

Entry One: Storms, Tannabata, and Africa

The G8 Summit in Japan opened on the annual festival of Tannabata, when Japanese tradition celebrates dreams and hopes usually in clear skies.

People tie write their wishes on pieces of paper and tie them to trees.

As G8 leaders arrived to this extremely rustic remote venue, the heavens broke forth with intense rushing rains. Streams of water flowed through ‘Day One' nearly swamping an otherwise green oasis.

AFRICA! AFRICA! AFRICA! echoed through the day, the debates and the informed dialogues with G8 countries, with the African Union and African leaders, with the UN Secretary General, the World Bank and others.

The food crisis, the fuel crisis, the climate change crisis - and the violent instability
in southern Africa, in Zimbabwe, generated more language about the priority problems in Africa, and beyond.

On the NGO and civil society side of the street, there were countless echoes and answers to the big questions of the day.

Where are the promises made for the sake of African communities? Where is Japan's bold pledge of profound assistance within concrete timeframe?

Hard-working, deeply engaged community leaders, farmers, mothers, teachers from Zambia, Uganda, South Africa, Nigeria, Benin, Malawi - spoke up here with their substantial Tannabata hopes and invitations to meet global pledges with practical, do-able programs of effective aid.

For example, Joyce, a dedicated mother of seven, who maintains her home and family with her husband - and then works her farm while supporting other small farmers to be resourceful. She says they find their plenty in their human abundance, recognizing each other's strengths and resourcefulness. "All we need is to be recognized and appreciated."

A colleague from another country notes: "Governments need to listen to her, bring her poignant voice to the powerful decision makers."

Indeed, Joyce doesn't come begging. It's not charity; it's intelligent, informed investment in people, in communities. Without honest relationships with the human family there will never be a collective enduring justice.

The hope is the rain washed away the empty rhetoric and not the Tannabata dreams of so many that the G8 would deliver justice.

Entry Two: Justice

The other major echo on Day One was - JUSTICE! JUSTICE! JUSTICE!
Justice for the poor, for the vulnerable, for the innocent and the resourceful human beings who stand ready to work for their futures, for their own communities.

Too many high level delegations travel deep into Africa, getting global media attention without delivering adequately on their past promises, leaving expectant human beings more at risk.

Some people suffer injustices, but none more than the poor.

Cynicism clouds the conversations here. Disappointments dig deep into the good will and high hopes of humanitarian organizations and advocacy colleagues. At the close of an unexpected gray day, we are all challenged.

Decisions based on policy discussions this week have far reaching effects on millions of people. Indeed, billions of needs require billions of dollars .Government commitments need to be dynamic, comprehensive and capable of serious partnerships with local communities.

Without engaging the human family directly everyone in Hokkaido tonight knows what absolutely lies ahead.

A Japanese colleague steeped in health care efforts reminded us all, governments and civil society alike: "The World is Watching!"

For Africa, for everywhere - MDGs are part of the hoped-for solutions or the call to action. No one is able to deny this reality.

Cumbre del G8 en Hokkaido

RESUMEN DEL PRIMER DÍA

Por Joseph Donnelly - Centro Internacional de Prensa/Cumbre del G8 en Hokkaido

Primera anotación: Tormentas, Tanabata y África

La Cumbre del G8 en Japón dio inicio coincidiendo con el festival anual de Tanabata, ocasión en que la tradición japonesa celebra los sueños y los anhelos, generalmente bajo un cielo claro y despejado.

La gente escribe sus deseos en trozos de papel que luego ata a los árboles.

Conforme los líderes del G8 fueron arribando a este rústico y remoto lugar, los cielos se abrieron dando paso a un intenso aguacero. Ríos de agua corrieron durante todo el "Primer Día", casi inundando la tierra que normalmente es un verde oasis.

¡ÁFRICA! ¡ÁFRICA! ¡ÁFRICA! fue el eco que resonó durante todo el día, en los debates y los diálogos informados con los países del G8 con la Unión Africana y con los líderes africanos, con el Secretario General de la ONU, el Banco Mundial y otros.

La crisis alimentaria, la crisis del petróleo, la crisis del cambio climático y la violenta inestabilidad en el sur de África, en Zimbabwe, generaron más discusión acerca de los problemas prioritarios en África y más allá.

En lo que respecta a las ONG y la sociedad civil hubo innumerables ecos y respuestas a las grandes preguntas del día.

¿Qué pasó con las promesas que se hicieron por el bien de las comunidades africanas? ¿Qué pasó con el enérgico compromiso que Japón hizo en relación con proporcionar más asistencia dentro de un período específico?

Líderes comunitarios, agricultores, madres y maestros trabajadores y fuertemente comprometidos de Zambia, Uganda, Sudáfrica, Nigeria, Benín y Malawi hablaron de sus anhelos de Tanabata e hicieron un llamado a cumplir las promesas mundiales con programas eficaces de ayuda que sean prácticos y realizables.

Por ejemplo, Joyce, una devota madre con siete hijos, que junto con su esposo mantiene su hogar y a su familia y que además trabaja en su granja y al mismo tiempo apoya a otros agricultores para tengan más recursos; dice que ellos encuentran la abundancia en su prodigalidad humana, reconociendo su mutua fortaleza y talento: "Todo lo que necesitamos es que se nos reconozca y se nos aprecie".

Un colega de otro país señaló: "Los gobiernos deben escucharla, transmitirle su conmovedor mensaje a los poderosos entes decisorios".

Joyce no pide limosna. No es caridad; es una inversión inteligente e informada en la gente, en las comunidades. Sin una relación honesta con la familia humana no podrá existir una justicia colectiva duradera.
La esperanza es que la lluvia se haya llevado la retórica vacía de significado y no los sueños de Tabanata de que el G8 haga justicia.

Segunda anotación: Justicia

El segundo eco importante del Primer Día fue: ¡JUSTICIA! ¡JUSTICIA! ¡JUSTICIA!
Justicia para los pobres, para los vulnerables, para los inocentes y para los seres humanos dispuestos a trabajar por su futuro, por sus propias comunidades.

Demasiadas delegaciones de alto nivel visitan las profundidades del África captando la atención de la prensa internacional sin cumplir a cabalidad sus promesas previas, poniendo a los expectantes seres humanos bajo mayor riesgo.

Algunos sufren injusticias, pero nadie más que los pobres.

Aquí, el cinismo nubla las conversaciones. Las decepciones se clavan en la buena voluntad y las ilusiones de las organizaciones humanitarias y de incidencia. Al culminar un inesperado día gris, todos nos vemos cuestionados.

Las decisiones que se tomarán esta semana sobre la base de las discusiones de políticas afectarán a millones de personas. Millardos de necesidades requieren de millardos de dólares. Los compromisos de los gobiernos deben ser dinámicos, integrales y capaces de establecer partenariados formales con las comunidades locales.

Todos los que están en Hokkaido esta noche saben lo que nos espera si no se involucra directamente a la familia humana.

Un colega japonés fuertemente involucrado en atención médica nos recordó a todos, gobierno y sociedad civil por igual: "¡El mundo está a la mira!"

Para África, y para todo el mundo, los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio son parte de las soluciones anheladas o del llamado a la acción. Nadie puede negar esta realidad.

G8-Hokkaido PREMIER JOUR - RESUME

Par Joseph C Donnelly- Centre international des médias / Sommet du G8 à Hokkaido

Note une : Tempêtes, Tanabata, et Afrique

Le sommet du G8 au Japon s’est ouvert le premier jour du festival annuel de Tanabata, tradition japonaise qui fête les rêves et les espoirs.

Les gens écrivent leurs vœux sur des bouts de papiers et les accrochent aux arbres.

Quand les leaders du G8 sont arrivés dans cet endroit très isolé de la campagne japonaise, le ciel s’est mis à déverser des trombes d’eau. Il a plu pendant toute la première journée, presque jusqu’au point d’inonder une oasis par ailleurs verte.

L’AFRIQUE ! L’AFRIQUE ! L’AFRIQUE ! a retenti toute la journée, dans tous les débats et les dialogues avec les pays du G8, l’Union africaine et les leaders africains, le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies, la banque mondiale et d’autres.

La crise alimentaire, la crise du pétrole, la crise du changement climatique – et l’instabilité violente en Afrique australe, au Zimbabwe, a suscité des discussions sur les problèmes prioritaires en Afrique et au-delà.

Du côté des ONG et de la société civile, on entendait nombre d’échos et de réponses à la grande question du jour.

Où sont les promesses faites pour les communautés africaines ? Où est l’engagement hardi du Japon d’une assistance importante avec une date concrète ?

Des chefs de file de communautés, des agriculteurs, des mères, des enseignants de Zambie, d’Ouganda, d’Afrique du Sud, du Nigeria, du Bénin, du Malawi, qui travaillent durs et sont fortement engagés, ont exprimés leurs espoirs de Tanabata et demandé que les engagements mondiaux soient suivis par des aides efficaces, concrètes et réalisables.

Citons par exemple Joyce, mère dévouée de sept enfants, qui entretient sa maison et sa famille avec son mari tout en travaillant dans sa ferme et soutenant d’autres petits agriculteurs. Elle dit qu’ils trouvent tout ce dont ils ont besoin en chacun, reconnaissant leurs forces et leur ingéniosité. "Tout ce dont nous avons besoin, c’est d’être reconnus et appréciés."

Un collègue d’un autre pays constate : "Les gouvernements ont besoin de l’écouter, de faire entendre sa voix émouvante aux décideurs."

En effet, Joyce ne mendie pas. Ce n’est pas de la charité. Elle s’investit de façon intelligente et informée dans les populations, les communautés. Sans une relation honnête avec la famille humaine, il n’y aura jamais de justice collective durable.

L’espoir, c’est que la pluie balaye les discours creux et non les rêves de Tanabata. Beaucoup espèrent que le sommet du G8 rendra justice.

Note deux : Justice

L’autre grand écho du premier jour était – JUSTICE ! JUSTICE ! JUSTICE !
Justice pour les pauvres, les vulnérables, les innocents et ceux qui sont prêts à travailler pour leur avenir et leurs communautés.

Trop de délégations formées de hauts responsables vont au cœur de l’Afrique, reçoivent l’attention des médias du monde entier mais ne tiennent pas leurs promesses, mettant en danger la vie d’humains plein d’espoirs.

Certains souffrent d’injustices, mais personne autant que les pauvres.

Le cynisme assombrit les conversations. Les déceptions puisent dans la bonne volonté et les espoirs des organisations humanitaires et des collègues lobbyistes. A la fin d’une journée étonnamment triste, nous sommes tous mis au défi.

Les décisions qui seront prises après les discussions politiques de cette semaine auront des effets très importants sur des millions de personnes. En effet, des milliards de besoins demandent des milliards de dollars. Les gouvernement doivent pouvoir s’engager de façon dynamique, totale et doivent pouvoir s’associer avec les communautés locales.

Sans engager directement la famille humaine, tout le monde à Hokkaido ce soir sait ce que réserve l’avenir.

Un collègue japonais investi dans la lutte pour les soins médicaux nous a rappelé à tous, aux gouvernements et à la société civile : "Le monde nous regarde !"

Pour l’Afrique, pour partout – les OMD font partie des solutions espérées ou de l’appel à agir. Personne ne peut nier cette réalité.

The Times Union reports:

Emergency rooms, they say, have become all-purpose dumping grounds for the mentally ill, with patients routinely marooned a day or more while health care workers try to find someone to care for them.

A survey of hundreds of U.S. hospitals released last month by the American College of Emergency Physicians found that 79 percent reported that they routinely "boarded" psychiatric patients in their waiting rooms for at least some period of time because of the unavailability of immediate services.

One-third reported that those stays averaged at least eight hours, and 6 percent said they had average waits of more than 24 hours.

The health care crisis in this country is not just about health insurance. The crisis isn't even just about health care. It's about an infrastructure in total disarray, from bridges, to city schools, to emergency rooms. There are cracks people fall through, and then there are canyons. The canyons are growing wider as the American Richistan looks after itself. We need to rebuild our country. A few terminations of employees caught on video monitors doing the normal nothing will not do.

Sadly, fewer people think of the United States of America in the first person plural, especially in Richistan. Until more people do, horrors such as the Kings County ER will become more and more common.

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil...

"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," says the report. The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.

A report that would add pressure to governments? Why, no mucky muck wants that!

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday...

Isn't that thoughty of them? Gives the Bushster a chance to engage in his usual MO -- lying his tail off.

President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."

At least the report has been leaked in a timely fashion in this respect:

The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.

What You Can Do: ONE.org has a simple petition to the G8 leaders here. You will sign it, right?

What was the purpose of creating the "United Nations", a term coined by Franklin D. Roosevelt (US President) in January of 1942? The stated aims of the United Nations were to prevent any future war, safeguard human rights around the world, establish some form of international law, promote social and economic justice, improve the living standards of people in all the countries and to fight deadly diseases. Have we achieved any of that? If yes, how much? It will be 63 years since UN was formed.

The United Nations was officially created  on October 24, 1945. Representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco to draw up the United Nations Charter. It replaced the League of Nations, created in 1919, after the First World War. The UN Charter was ratified by China, France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and the United States. These five countries became permanent members of the UN Security Council, each with a veto power on any UN resolution. Today, there are 192 member states, representing almost every recognized independent country in the world. Unfortunately, the UN Security Council represents less than 30% of the world population. There is no representation from the continents of South America and Africa or for that matter any part of Muslim world or the Indian sub-continent.

June 25, 2008
www.votenader.org
www.officialnaderstore.com Senator Obama said earlier today that I haven't been paying attention to his campaign.

Actually, I have.

And it's clear from Senator Obama's campaign that he is not willing to tackle the white power structure - whether in the form of the corporate power structure or many of the super-rich - who are taking advantage of 100 million low income Americans who are suffering in poverty or near poverty.

Senator Obama is opposed to single payer national health insurance.

Why?

Because he favors the health insurance giants over the millions of Americans in poverty or near poverty who are uninsured or under-insured. Eighteen thousand Americans die every year because they cannot afford health insurance, according to the Institute of Medicine.

Senator Obama wants to expand the military budget which is loaded with waste, fraud and abuse - instead of cutting it and investing the long ignored peace dividend in the inner cities with good jobs and public works - including schools, clinics, and libraries.

Why?

Because he fears and favors those thousands of lobbyists in charge of enlarging the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against.

Senator Obama says he favors a living wage. But he doesn't say he would immediately increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour, which is the equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage adjusted for inflation - because by doing so he would offend the big corporations who exploit labor in places like Wal-Mart and fast food chains. (The minimum wage needs to be increased immediately, not phased in over a number of years, as Senator Obama would have it.)

So Senator Obama, let's get specific.

We're looking for deeds, not, as Shakespeare put it, words, words, mere words.

Your public career, which I have also been paying attention to, is long on words, and short on action when it comes to consumer protection, cracking down on corporate crime, curbing the violence of toxic environmental racism, and extending clean, affordable public transit, among other issues.

For the purposes of the here and now, three things:

One, why don't you support single payer national health insurance, which is supported by a majority of doctors and the American people?

Two, why do you favor expanding the military budget which is replete with waste, fraud and abuse?

And three, why don't you come out and support an immediate increase of the minimum wage to $10 an hour?

When can we expect the authenticity of hope and change? ]]> http://davidlarkin.wordpress.com/?p=5 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:36:19 +0000 davidlarkin http://davidlarkin.wordpress.com/?p=5 Taxes represent the social element of income and wealth, neither of which are possible without the interdependent society and its infrastructure, markets, and people who participate. The amount of the social element is negotiated politically. This is not socialism or communism because the elements of production are privately owned. However, this does recognize that wealth and income cannot be created on a desert island. Creativity and initiative must reap a fair reward, but the social element cannot be ignored. The best articulation of the principles of this truth I have read is from L.T. Hobhouse, the British journalist, scholar and political theorist, writing in 1911, his words still true today, from his work, "Liberalism and other Writings, Cambridge University Press (1994), from Chapter VIII, "Economic Liberalism":

-----------------------

"Wealth, I would contend, has a social as well as a personal basis. Some forms of wealth, such as ground rents in and about cities, are substantially the creation of society, and it is only through the misfeasance of government in times past that such wealth has been allowed to fall into private hands." p. 90

------------------------

"The ground problem in economics is not to destroy property, but to restore the social conception of property to its right place under conditions suitable to modern needs. This is not to be done by crude measures of redistribution such as those of which we hear in ancient history. It is to be done by distingushing the social from individual factors in wealth, by bringing the elements of the social wealth into the public coffers, and by holding it at the disposal of society to administer to the prime needs of its members.

"The basis of property is social, and that in two senses. On the one hand, it is the organized force of society that maintains the rights of owners by protecting them against thieves and depredators. In spite of all criticism many people still seem to speak of the rights of property as though they were conferred by Nature or by Providence upon certain fortunate individuals, and as though these individuals had an unlimited right to command the State, as their servant, to secure them by the free use of the machinery of law in the undisturbed enjoyment of their possessions. They forget that without the organized force of society their rights are not worth a week's purchase. They do not ask themselves where they would be without the judge and the policeman and the settled order which society maintains. The prosperous businessman who thinks that he has made his fortune entirely by self help does not pause to consider what single step he could have taken on the road to his success but for the ordered tranquillity which has made commercial development possible, the security by road, and rail, and sea, the masses of skilled labour, and the sum of intelligence which civilization has placed at his disposal, the very demand for the goods which he produces which the general progress of the world has created, the inventions which he uses as a matter of course and which have been built up by the collective effort of generations of men of science and organizers of industry. If he dug to the foundations of of his fortune he would recognize that, as it is society that maintains and guarantees his possessions, so also it is society which is an indispensable partner in its original creation.

This brings us to the second sense in which property is social. There is a social element in value and a social element in production. In modern industry there is very little that the individual can do by his unaided efforts. Labour is minutely divided; and in proportion as it is divided it is forced to be co-operative. Men produce goods to sell, that the rate of exchange, that is, price, is fixed by relations of demand and supply the rates of which are determined by complex social forces. in the methods of production every man makes use, to the best of his ability, of the whole available means of civilization, of the machinery which the brains of other men have devised, of the human apparatus which is the gift of acquired civilization. Society thus provides conditions or opportunities of which one man will make much better use than another, and the use to which they are put is the individual or personal element in production which is the basis of the personal claim to reward. To maintain and stimulate this personal effort is a necessity of good economic organization . . . an individualism which ignores the social factor in wealth will deplete the national resources, deprive the community of its just share in the fruits of industry and so result in a one-sided and inequitable distribution of wealth. Economic justice is to render what is due not only to each individual but to each function, social or personal, that is engaged in the performance of useful service, and this due is measured by the amount necessary to stimulate and maintain the efficient exercise of that useful function. This equation between function and the sustenance is the true meaning of economic equality."

p. 91-92

-----------------------

The true function of taxation is to secure to society the element in wealth that is of social origin, or, more broadly, all that does not owe its origin to the efforts of living individuals. When taxation, based on these principles, is utilized to secure healthy conditions of existence to the mass of the people it is clear that this is no case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Peter is not robbed. Apart from the tax it is he who would be robbing the State. A tax which enables the State to secure a certain share of social value is not something deducted from that which the taxpayer has an unlimited right to call his own, but rather a repayment of something which was all along due to society." p. 97

------------------------

"The distinction that I would claim for economic Liberalism is that it seeks to do justice to the social and individual factors in industry alike, as opposed to an abstract Socialism which emphasizes the one side and an abstract Individualism which leans its whole weight on the other. By keeping to the conception of harmony as our clue we constantly define the rights of the individual in terms of the common good, and think of the common good in terms of the welfare of all the individuals who constitute a society. Thus in economics we avoid the confusion of liberty with competition, and see no virtue in the right of a man to get the better of others. At the same time we are not led to minimize the share of personal initiative, talent, or energy in production, but are free to contend for their claim to adequate recognition."
p. 101

------------------

At my grammar school, these were put up on every stairwell to the basement. The problem was, anyone who had read up on what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or even to saturation-bombed Dresden and Hamburg, knew that a grammar school basement wasn't exactly a shelter from much.

Well, no matter. I do remember classmates whose parents actually built home fallout shelters, some almost as snazzy as this:

And the idea was (if you thought it through), you'd only be able to stock your home shelter with enough stuff for your immediate family, so in the case of pushy, panicky neighbors, it was prudent to stock a shotgun. The nuclear age brought us Xtreme Aesop's Ant and Grasshopper, it seemed.

Paranoia knit the country together during the Eisenhower-Kennedy years. There we were, scared of an armageddon that, ironically enough, we ourselves had invented at Los Alamos! And as baby boomer males' crew cuts morphed into hippie hair, then began falling out, until their pates eventually became buzzed once more, so paranoia and its ironies remix the same old themes:

Global warming is likely to increase illegal immigration, create humanitarian disasters and destabilize precarious governments in political hot spots, all of which could affect U.S. national security, according to an assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Central and Southeast Asia are most vulnerable to warming-related drought, flooding, extreme weather and hunger. The intelligence assessment warns of the global impact from the spillover: increased migration and "water-related disputes," according to prepared remarks by Tom Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, who was scheduled to speak before a joint House committee hearing.

Grim stuff indeed. Notice particularly who's saying this, and why.

The national intelligence assessment on the national security implications of global climate change to 2030 is one of a series of periodic intelligence reports that offer the consensus judgment of top analysts at all 16 U.S. spy agencies on major foreign policy, security and global economic issues. Congress requested the report last year.

And no wonder they did. Last year an even grimmer report by the Center for Naval Analyses --

...drew a direct correlation between global warming and the conditions that lead to failed states becoming the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.

"Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror," stated Adm. T. Joseph Lopez, who commanded U.S. and allied peacekeeping forces in Bosnia in 1996.

"Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," the previous report said. "The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations," stated the report, which drew on 11 retired generals and admirals.

This time, the 16 spy agencies downplayed the terror bit. But still, spies and brass as the source of concern about human misery seems to say only one thing:

U.S. to the rest of the world: "We've got BIG shotguns here."

One of my conservative comment-leavers (I won't call him a troll, because that would be mean and because he hasn't been abusive - yet) told me that, with the post upon which he was commenting, I'd "truly come out on the side of hardline political radicalism, so [I] can’t hide in the Quaker shell," exposing myself, I suppose, to be the "radical" I really am.

Well, I'm glad that's over. 

I guess I'm finally out of the closet.  Whew.  What a relief.

I thanked him for it, for helping me come out.  At least for the "radical" part.  If being a "radical" means what I think he means by the term, then I'm glad he recognized me for being what I guess I am.

That got me to thinking about what being a "radical" in 2008 might mean.  I posted on being a "radical teacher" yesterday.

The term "radical," however, has lost some of its sting, however, in the same way that the term "liberal" has.  I mean, if Barack Obama is a "radical," as some radio shout show hosts would have us believe, in the way that Bill Clinton was a "liberal," we might need a new word for what some of us on the Left side of the room are!

I have to say, however, that I think that being a practicing Friend is a radical act.  Maybe not in the way that my comment-leaving conservative friend means (he means, it seems, "radical" = "socialist/liberal/progressive/friend of the terr'ists."  Especially in today's world, it seems to me that attempting to live life as a Quaker, meaning following as best I can the testimonies of peace, equality, integrity, and simplicity, is certainly a radical concept.

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition of the word "radical"  is "of, relating to, or proceeding from a root," and it then goes on to show what that means in terms of plants, mathematics, and linguistics.  Well, early Quakers saw themselves as returning to the "roots" of the early Christian church, to a primitive form of Christianity.  So trying to live the Testimonies would be an attempt to return to the basics of Christian faith.

To attempt to move peacefully through the world - to espouse peace and to not only believe but to also act in a non-violent way in all of one's daily transactions with the world - is a truly radical act these days.  Those who do not really understand pacifism assume that to be a pacifist means to be passive, and nothing could be further from the truth.  Was Gandhi a "passive" person?  Was Dr. King?  Hardly.  They were radicals, in that they rejected the dominant paradigm that might always makes right, and that any form of violence - physical, military, economic, etc. - is wrong and must be rejected.  They believed that "peace is the way," in all things, not just in terms of war, that to love your neighbor as yourself was among the most important of all the commandments.  Sorta like Jesus.

To believe and act on the Testimony of Equality, given the way of the world, is a radical act.  To believe in a universalist approach to faith, as I do and as does many if not most of the Friends at my Meeting, means to reject the intolerance of the dominant culture which, if not expressing outright hostility towards religious, ethnic, "racial," or sexual minorities, certainly deals in stereotypes and on assumptions and prejudices which only retard us as a society.

To believe in and to then act on the Testimony of Integrity are radical acts, especially in a culture which seem to place so much value on deceit.  Watch our so-called "reality shows," if you don't believe me.  Almost all of them are about "winning" at the expense of others, preferably by humiliation, deception, dishonesty, and dissembling.  Sticking true to one's values, especially spiritual values, can be really difficult in a society where consumerism and global capitalism have become religions themselves.

Living a simpler life - to walk "gently" through the world: that's not easy.  For one thing, how many of us can accept the idea that life will be "simpler," for example, if we could toss aside the very gadgets (like this computer) which supposedly make our lives easier and... simpler?  Simplicity means, to me, paring down and rejecting those things which keep us from leading more Christ-like lives, but how far are we to go?  That's the dilemma, and the challenge.